How do people learn judgment in systems they didn’t build?
context.
Trust is often treated as an outcome of good intentions or correct behavior: something that appears once systems function correctly or actors behave well. In practice, trust is shaped by incentives, power dynamics, and lived experience.
Many systems claim to prioritize trust while embedding incentives that undermine it—rewarding speed over care, growth over accountability, or compliance over understanding.
This question reflects an interest in how trust is actually experienced, not just how it is declared.
the tension.
Designing for trust becomes difficult when incentives push behavior in opposing directions. Even well-intentioned systems can erode trust if their structures reward outcomes that contradict stated values.
The tension emerges when trust is framed as a moral expectation rather than a design challenge. People are asked to trust systems that do not consistently demonstrate trustworthiness.
This mismatch often leads to skepticism, disengagement, or performative compliance.
what this points toward.
This question points toward trust as something that must be actively designed for—through transparency, feedback loops, and alignment between incentives and stated goals.
It suggests that trust is less about persuasion and more about predictability, recourse, and shared understanding of how decisions are made.
Designing for trust requires acknowledging where incentives are misaligned and treating that acknowledgment as a starting point, not a failure.
